NEM (XEM) Official Thread - 100% New Code - Easy To Use APIs

[xtester]

Lets keep calm guys and also try keep the thread on course.

[MrPortMan]

roughly 1400 people have to have their client running at the same time. That's like waiting for some special stellar constellation
Not to mention that a huge chunk of stakeholders only drop by once a month so it would have to be at least 1 month after the announcement which even if the announcement was made right now would be later than what we hope to be launch.

Not running at the same time. Launching it one day before and leaving it working.

Why you can't postpone the launch a little?

I think there are about 500 people that would kill us if we postponed because of anything other than technical reasons.
If people were like "Well that's worth it let's postpone for that" then I'd personally consider it (no idea what the rest thinks) but I don't think that's the case at all.

My vote is YES! I think it's better to postpone the launch than leaving existing sockpuppets continuously drop the price.

edit: that's a big problem of NXT btw, early stakeholders are still keeping the price very low, they (I know at least one of them) create big sell orders as soon as the price goes up a bit.

Exactly! The first ten accounts of NXT have 26,6% of all NXT network... Such in the NEM network shouldn't be. At all has to be on 50000 XEM - 100000 XEM and at most 250000 XEM. To have bigger quantity to anything. Us there have to be 69000 nemsters.

[Daedelus]

roughly 1400 people have to have their client running at the same time. That's like waiting for some special stellar constellation
Not to mention that a huge chunk of stakeholders only drop by once a month so it would have to be at least 1 month after the announcement which even if the announcement was made right now would be later than what we hope to be launch.

Not running at the same time. Launching it one day before and leaving it working.

Why you can't postpone the launch a little?

I think there are about 500 people that would kill us if we postponed because of anything other than technical reasons.
If people were like "Well that's worth it let's postpone for that" then I'd personally consider it (no idea what the rest thinks) but I don't think that's the case at all.

My vote is YES! I think it's better to postpone the launch than leaving existing sockpuppets continuously drop the price.

edit: that's a big problem of NXT btw, early stakeholders are still keeping the price very low, they (I know at least one of them) create big sell orders as soon as the price goes up a bit.

Exactly! The first ten accounts of NXT have 26,6% of all NXT network... Such in the NEM network shouldn't be. At all has to be on 50000 XEM - 100000 XEM and at most 250000 XEM. To have bigger quantity to anything. Us there have to be 69000 nemsters.

How many devs will control 65% of NEM?


My posts are invisible! I can do whatever I want 

[Sebastien256]

No more delays, CFB is spreading FUD with this "insider" sockspuppet stuff. The guy has no evidence to back up his arguments.

Nutillah = CfB

Troll = Nutillah

CfB = ?

UP?

no.

[MrPortMan]

Sorry. The first ten accounts of NXT have 26,1 % of all NXT network...

See top NXT balances : http://www.nxtexplorer.com/nxt/nxt.cgi?action=30

[freigeist]

How many devs will control 65% of NEM?


My posts are invisible! I can do whatever I want 

Wrong.
Feel free to read the whole thread here
https://forum.nemcoin.com/general-discussion/proposed-usage-for-unclaimed-socks/

and also contribute.

[Daedelus]

Which bit is wrong? (Granted, it is now clear I am not invisible) Who will hodl the multisig keys to 65% of all NEM if not the devs?

I asked a question. But it got ignored. I bumped it and Patmaster answered, and there was nothing that could be done about NEM holders being in a minority at launch, apparently. I contributed how it was would be bad to launch with the Nemholders as such a minority (along with 2-3 others). It (we) got ignored. I thought I was invisible. I wasn't.


Do you usually respond to queries with threads of ~100+ posts and a effectively a grunt of "read that.."? Do you think the 45-65 percentage stake split is a good idea?

[lordoliver]

A few people asked but I'm not sure there was ever an answer about why the original 75%-25% figure is not being upheld?

Yes, total BS. It's actually 65% (for development) and 45% for stakeholders.  That's the distribution

Please stopp this foolish fud and start to use your brain.
Maybe the development gets a little more coins, but I tell you what:
Coins can only survive with a active develpment and marketing.

On POS Coins it works like this: The less coins developers hold, the less active they are, because they can make less profit.

Just look at ripple or stellar. Does anyone care, that they keep the majority of coins? No. Because they will push the coin as much as they can.
The only reason, why nxt is still succeeding, is because the developers still hold a lot of them.
Where is the so fair Crypti or Node? They are nearly dying, because they just sold everything to others. The illusion, that coin developers have to give all coins to the community does just not work. Their share will be too low, to have any reason to further work on it. It's just not worth it. It only can work, if a dev is buying a large amount of a coin and bring it forward. And a dev buying his own coins means just keeping it and not giving it to the community.

[MrPortMan]

Private keys aren't visible to developers, they have only addresses which they will include in a network and private keys is only at us. Our private keys aren't visible to them in any way.

[Daedelus]

@lordoliver
Point to a single post that is saying give away all the coin and give 0 stakes for development. Nobody has said that so who are you arguing against? 25% seemed reasonable, now it is 65% and we have radio silence and anyone who mentions it is ignored.  

@MrPortMan
Mine and your private key isn't available to the devs but the sock puppet ones must be as the devs will be creating them, otherwise the sock puppet stakes will go into the abyss at launch. So who other than the devs will be holding the mulitsig keys to the 65% of all NEM?

[MrPortMan]

Some nonsense. Why to them to ruin that that they built the whole 1,5 years?

[Daedelus]

Some nonsense. Why to them to ruin that that they built the whole 1,5 years?

I didn't say they wanted to ruin anything. But you seem to concede 3-6 devs (?) will control 65% of all NEM, however well intentioned they are. I think, as stated above, this will act as a brake and will be more damaging than any perceived benefit. But no one else wants to discuss this or anyone else who mentioned it.  

[TaunSew]

A few people asked but I'm not sure there was ever an answer about why the original 75%-25% figure is not being upheld?

Yes, total BS. It's actually 65% (for development) and 45% for stakeholders.  That's the distribution

Where is the so fair Crypti or Node? They are nearly dying, because they just sold everything to others.

Not sure about Crypti but that was really inaccurate about NODE.  NODE team actually has 40% of the total supply (at least the genesis address hasn't been touched, yet) and they don't even tell people what they're doing.   Actually their piss off attitude towards early adopters is what is hurting the value of their coin. 

[gimre]

A year later, after being screwed over by old man Jeff Garzik ("hashes do not match, phaggot")

Actually that was dumb of Garzik. He expected his own builds to have same hashes as official jars. That's really dumb.

Yes in case of java it IS possible to set it up in such a way, that you will have exactly same jar, but why would anyone want to waste time on this?

It's almost as sensible as requiring the bitcoind.exe to have same hash wherever you'll compile it and whatever compiler you use. Good luck with that!

So my 0.02 XEMs, it was some crappy BTC trolling.

[Daedelus]

I always lol when I see Taunsew in here  The messiah returns! 

[freigeist]

Which bit is wrong? (Granted, it is now clear I am not invisible) Who will hodl the multisig keys to 65% of all NEM if not the devs?

I asked a question. But it got ignored. I bumped it and Patmaster answered, and there was nothing that could be done about NEM holders being in a minority at launch, apparently. I contributed how it was would be bad to launch with the Nemholders as such a minority (along with 2-3 others). It (we) got ignored. I thought I was invisible. I wasn't.

Well if you DO NOT TRUST the developers then you can ask in the thread
if the key can be shared between developers and trusted escrow service.

Do you usually respond to queries with threads of ~100+ posts and a effectively a grunt of "read that.."? Do you think the 45-65 percentage stake split is a good idea?

NO but I have seen you here for a longer time so
I thought that maybe you are interested more in details in this project.

The split you mentions is not correct the developers (core team) are not entitled to the 65%.
The developers will get 25% of all stakes that means 1000 stakes for the core team.

3000 stakes (75%) were planned to be distributed so after sockpuppet eradication
about half 1500 stakes will be put apart for long term projects.

I think is good to have funds aside for projects.

[TaunSew]

Some nonsense. Why to them to ruin that that they built the whole 1,5 years?

I didn't say they wanted to ruin anything. But you seem to concede 3-6 devs (?) will control 65% of all NEM, however well intentioned they are. I think, as stated above, this will act as a brake and will be more damaging than any perceived benefit. But no one else wants to discuss this or anyone else who mentioned it.  

Not 65%

Besides that is why NEM cannot release without multisig.  At least NEM will have multisig unlike the 2000 or so alternates to Bitcoin..   I guess like the United States of America in 1776 but multisig is otherwise a system of check and balances that will keep everybody honest.  No "my dog stole my coins" stories like Klee or John or the million examples that had occurred in other alts.

http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/views/market-cap-by-total-supply/

With the exception of Solar Coin, whose volume is a joke, practically most of the top 10 coins had some kind of budget.

Nobody wants to repeat NXT.  I remember from 2013, and the posts are still there on the older NXT forum, of people having to beg the whales to make the whales richer *mind blown*, that is real greed when you're sitting on $4 million and can't even be bothered to help fund your own coin.  On the contrary, most of the behaviour of the NXT whales (since day #1) was to dump and cash out their lottery winnings without any regard for the ecosystem or NXT's overall livelihood.  That's why nobody is buying NXT anymore because as soon as it shows any signs of going up - the whales dump it back down.  

[nutildah]

706 pages. All talk, no action. You guys should just stop talking until you have something worth talking about.

There's nothing more to discuss -- the devs are holding up the coin launch for "conditions to be right," and I'm talking about greedy economic conditions, not multisig functionality conditions.

I don't want to hear peep from any of the devs or publicity crew until you announce an actual, firm release date. Everything else you guys have to say is just garbage spilling from your face, covering up your motivations of greed.

[MrPortMan]

Some nonsense. Why to them to ruin that that they built the whole 1,5 years?

I didn't say they wanted to ruin anything. But you seem to concede 3-6 devs (?) will control 65% of all NEM, however well intentioned they are. I think, as stated above, this will act as a brake and will be more damaging than any perceived benefit. But no one else wants to discuss this or anyone else who mentioned it.  

I understood about what you want to tell Daedelus to us. It is about the decentralized autonomous corporation. About DAC. But how still it is possible to operate fund of community more more effectively? Simply the democracy doesn't work here as if the majority want to ruin NEM - they will make it method of collective vote and they will kill with method of a majority of votes all project. Including the fund can be plundered by method of a majority of votes.

On this subject I conducted discussion before. We need fund of management on the basis of the Kopny right. Read about Slavic communities, they had once this most Kopny right. 10 people, foremen chose from the people, they solved as there will live the people further. The people and foremen are always interrelation. Everything on a mutual consent becomes. Attempts to destroy are so blocked when in foremen the wisest people sit and they won't allow destruction by the veto.

[Daedelus]

Which bit is wrong? (Granted, it is now clear I am not invisible) Who will hodl the multisig keys to 65% of all NEM if not the devs?

I asked a question. But it got ignored. I bumped it and Patmaster answered, and there was nothing that could be done about NEM holders being in a minority at launch, apparently. I contributed how it was would be bad to launch with the Nemholders as such a minority (along with 2-3 others). It (we) got ignored. I thought I was invisible. I wasn't.

Well if you DO NOT TRUST the developers then you can ask in the thread
if the key can be shared between developers and trusted escrow service.

Do you usually respond to queries with threads of ~100+ posts and a effectively a grunt of "read that.."? Do you think the 45-65 percentage stake split is a good idea?

NO but I have seen you here for a longer time so
I thought that maybe you are interested more in details in this project.

The split you mentions is not correct the developers (core team) are not entitled to the 65%.
The developers will get 25% of all stakes that means 1000 stakes for the core team.

3000 stakes (75%) were planned to be distributed so after sockpuppet eradication
about half 1500 stakes will be put apart for long term projects.

I think is good to have funds aside for projects.

Again, no one is disagreeing with you (reminds me, I need a new prescription of crazy pills... running low). Let's try this:



Think about the long term to balance progress against perception being an anchor to adoption/use.

With 0% of stakes for development, it could be argued you will have zero long term progress but excellent perception (in extermis).

With 100% of stakes for development, you would have excellent war chest for progress but zero for perception (and by definition, no community/users)


We want a number in between 0 and 100. So which do you agree with more?


a) I think it is good to have 65% of all funds set aside for projects

OR

b) I think it is good to have 25% of all funds set aside for projects.


What is likely to give the best balance between the two factors above, a or b?